Anarchism is a heterogeneous
philosophy with many different tendencies and schools of thought;[1][2][3]
differences on questions of ideology, values and tactics are
common. Ideas about how an anarchist society might work vary
considerably, especially with respect to economics. There are also
disagreements about how such a society might be brought about, with
some anarchists being committed to a strategy of nonviolence, while
others advocate armed struggle.

Definitional concerns

Anarchist schools of thought encompass not only a range of
individual schools, but also a considerable divergence in the use
of some key terms.
Some terms, such as "socialism", have been subject to multiple
definitions and ideological struggle throughout the period of the
development of anarchism. Others, such as "capitalism" are used in divergent, and often
contradictory, ways by different schools within the tradition. In
addition, terms such as "mutualism" have changed
their meanings over time, without spawning new schools. All of
these terminological difficulties contribute to misunderstandings
within and about anarchism.

A central concern is whether the term "anarchism" is defined in
opposition to hierarchy,
authority or the state. Debates
over the meaning of the term emerge from the fact that it refers to
both an abstract philosophical position and to intellectual,
political and institutional traditions, all of which have been
fraught with conflict. Some minimal, abstract definitions encourage
the inclusion of figures, movements and philosophical positions
which have historically positioned themselves outside, or even in
opposition to, individuals and traditions that have identified
themselves as "anarchist."

Anti-capitalism is considered a necessary element of anarchism
by most social anarchists, while anarcho-capitalists naturally
disagree. The conflict arises from some combination of genuine
differences of opinion on the merits of market economies, differing
definitions of "capitalism," and the "package deal" character of
some definitions. Usages in political circles have varied
considerably. In 1894, Richard Ely noted that the term had "already
acquired a variety of meanings." These included, in its most
general sense, the view that society is "a living, growing
organism, the laws of which are something different from the laws
of individual action."[4] Several
years earlier, in 1888, the individualist
anarchistBenjamin R.
Tucker included the full text of a "Socialistic Letter" by Ernest Lesigne in
his essay on "State Socialism and Anarchism." According to Lesigne,
there are two socialisms, and "One is dictatorial, the other
libertarian."[5]

Ends and
means

Among anarchists, there is no consensus on the legitimacy or
utility of violence in revolutionary struggle. Mikhail Bakunin
and Errico
Malatesta, for example, wrote of violence as a necessary and
sometimes desirable force in revolutionary settings. At the same
time, they denounced acts of individual terrorism. (Bakunin, "The
Program of the International Brotherhood" (1869)[6] and
Malatesta, "Violence as a Social Factor" (1895)). Other anarchists
such as Leo Tolstoy,
Dorothy Day, Mohandas Karamchand
Gandhi[7]
and Henry David Thoreau have been
advocates of pacifism.

Anarchists have often been portrayed as dangerous and violent,
possibly due to a number of high-profile violent actions, including
riots, assassinations, insurrections, and terrorism committed by some
anarchists as well as persistently negative media portrayals.[8] Late
19th-century revolutionaries encouraged acts of political
violence, called "propaganda of the deed", such as
bombings and the assassinations of
heads of state
to further anarchism. However, the term originally referred to
exemplary forms of direct action meant to inspire the masses to
revolution. Propaganda of the deed may be violent or
nonviolent.

As a result of anarchism's critical view of certain
types of private property, many anarchists see
the destruction of property as an acceptable form of violence or
argue that it is not, in fact, violence at all. In her widely cited
1912 essay, Direct Action, Voltairine de Cleyre drew on
American historical events, including the destroying of revenue
stamps and the Boston Tea Party, as a defense of such
activities.[10]

Many anarchists participate in subversive organizations as a
means to undermine the establishment, such as Food Not Bombs,
radical labor
unions, alternative media, and radical social centers. This is in accordance
with the anarchist ideal that governments are intrinsically evil:
only by destroying the power of governments can individual freedoms
and liberties be preserved. Some anarchist schools, however, in
theory adopt the concept of Dual Power: creating the
structures for a new anti-authoritarian society in the shell of the
old, hierarchical one.

Participation in statist
democracy

While most anarchists firmly oppose voting, or otherwise
participating in the State institution, there are a few that
disagree. The prominent anarchist, Proudhon, stood for election to
the French Constituent Assembly twice in 1848.
Paul Brousse
developed the concept of libertarian municipalism in Switzerland in the
1890s which involved participating in local elections.[11] Many
anarchists oppose voting for three reasons. First, they believe it
to be ineffective, at best resulting in minor reforms. Second,
taking part in elections has historically resulted in radicals
becoming part of the system they oppose rather than ending it.[12]
Third, because some claim voting amounts to an acknowledgment of
the state's legitimacy.[13] Most
fundamental is the idea that representative democracy
itself is fundamentally flawed. In essence, the state uses the
theory that it is democratic to gain power over the populace, and
then uses force to suppress any dissent. Nonetheless, the state in
reality almost never serves the interests of the populace in
general, but simply produces the illusion that it does this solely
to gain power. Governments operate at the expense of the public
good, and can serve no other purpose regardless of whatever form
they take. During the 2004 US
Presidential election, the anarchist collectiveCrimethInc. launched "Don't Just Vote, Get
Active," a campaign promoting the importance of direct action,
rather than electoral change. Anarchists in other countries often
engage in similar anti-voting campaigns. Others advocate a more
pragmatic approach, including voting in referenda,[14] while
other prominent anarchists like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky have pledged their support
for progressive
candidates such as Ralph
Nader.[15]

The individualist anarchist Lysander Spooner argued that voting
was a legitimate means of self-defense against the state, and noted
that many supporters of the state consider both voting and
abstention to be acknowledgments of the state's legitimacy.[16]
Spooner's essay "No Treason"[17]
offers an individualist anarchist rebuttal to the argument that
existing democratic governments are justified by majority
consent.

Democracy
in anarchism

For individualist anarchists, "the system of democracy, of
majority decision, is held null and void. Any impingement upon the
natural rights of the person is unjust and a symbol of majority
tyranny."[18]
Libertarian municipalist Murray Bookchin criticized
individualist anarchists for opposing democracy,[19] and
said "majority rule" is consistent with anarchism,[20] but
he also preferred the term assembly rather than democracy. Bookchin
has in turn been accused of "municipal statism"; i.e.,
non-anarchism.[21]
Later, Bookchin renounced anarchism to identify himself as an
advocate of Communalism.

Violence and
non-violence

Anarchists have often been portrayed as dangerous and violent,
due mainly to a number of high-profile violent acts including riots, assassinations, and insurrections involving anarchists. The use
of terrorism and
assassination, however, is condemned by most anarchist ideology,
though there remains no consensus on the legitimacy or utility of
violence. Some anarchists have opposed coercion, while others have supported it,
particularly in the form of violent revolution on the path to
anarchy or utopia.[22]

Some anarchists share Leo Tolstoy's Christian
anarchist belief in nonviolence. These anarcho-pacifists advocate nonviolent resistance as the only
method of achieving a truly anarchist revolution. They often see
violence as the basis of government and coercion and argue that, as
such, violence is illegitimate, no matter who is the target. Some
of Proudhon's French followers
even saw strike
action as coercive and refused to take part in such traditional
socialist tactics.

Other anarchists advocate Marshall Rosenberg's non-violent
communication that relates to peoples fundamental needs and
feelings using strategies of requests, observations and empathy yet
providing for the use of protective force while rejecting pacifism
as a compromising strategy of the left that just perpetuates
violence.

Other anarchists, such as Mikhail Bakunin and Errico
Malatesta saw violence as a necessary and sometimes desirable
force. Malatesta took the view that it is "necessary to destroy
with violence, since one cannot do otherwise, the violence which
denies [the means of life and for development] to the workers"
(Umanità
Nova, number 125, September 6, 1921[23]).

Such "propaganda of the deed" was not
popular among anarchists, and many in the movement condemned the
tactic. For example, McKinley's assassin, Leon Czolgosz, claimed to be a disciple
of Emma Goldman,
but she disavowed any association with him.

Goldman included in her definition of anarchism the observation
that all governments rest on violence, and this is one of the many
reasons they should be opposed. Goldman herself didn't oppose
tactics like assassination until she went to Russia, where she
witnessed the violence of the Russian state and the Red Army. From then on she
condemned the use of terrorism, especially by the state, and
advocated violence only as a means of self-defense.

Depictions in the press and popular fiction (for example, a
malevolent bomb-throwing anarchist in Joseph Conrad's The Secret
Agent) helped create a lasting public impression that
anarchists are violent terrorists. This perception was enhanced by
events such as the Haymarket Riot, where anarchists were
blamed for throwing a bomb at police who came to break up a public
meeting in Chicago.

More recently, anarchists have been involved in protests against
World Trade Organization (WTO) and International Monetary Fund
(IMF) meetings across the globe, which the media has described as
violent or riots. Traditionally, May Day in London has also been a day of marching, but in
recent years the Metropolitan
Police have warned that a "hardcore of anarchists" are intent
on causing violence. Anarchists often respond that it is the police
who initiate violence at these demonstrations, with anarchists who
are otherwise peaceful sometimes forced to defend themselves. The
anarchists involved in such protests often formed black blocs at these
protests and some engaged in property destruction, vandalism, or in violent
conflicts with police, though
others stuck to non-violent principles.

Those participating in black blocs distinguish between
"violence" and "property destruction": they claim that violence is
when a person inflicts harm to another person, while property
destruction or property damage is not violence, although it can
have indirect harm such as financial harm. Most anarchists, do not
consider the destruction of property to be violent, as do most
activists who believe in non-violence.

Anarchist literature often portrays war as an activity in which
the state seeks to gain and consolidate power, both domestically
and in foreign lands. Many anarchists subscribe to Randolph
Bourne's view that "war is the health of the state"[24].
Anarchists believe that if they were to support a war they would be
strengthening the state– indeed, Peter Kropotkin was alienated from
other anarchists when he expressed support for the British in World War I.

Just as they are critical and distrustful of most government
endeavors, anarchists often view the stated reasons for war with a
cynical eye. Since the Vietnam War protests in
North America
and, most recently, the protests against the war in Iraq, much
anarchist activity has been anti-war based.

Many anarchists in the current movement however, reject complete
pacifism, (although groups like Earth First!, and Food Not Bombs
are based on principles of non-violence), and instead are in favor
of self-defense, and sometimes violence against oppressive and
authoritarian forces which they in fact also consider as defensive
violence. Anarchists are skeptical however of winning a direct
armed conflict with the state, and instead concern themselves
mostly with organizing.

Individualism vs.
collectivism

While most anarchists favour collective property or no property,
some, such as individualist
anarchists of historical note (e.g. Benjamin Tucker and Lysander
Spooner) support private property. Tucker argues that
collectivism in property is absurd: "That there is an entity known
as the community which is the rightful owner of all land,
Anarchists deny...I...maintain that ‘the community’ is a
non-entity, that it has no existence..." He was particularly
adamant in his opposition to "communism," even to the point of
asserting that those who opposed private property were not
anarchists: "Anarchism is a word without meaning, unless it
includes the liberty of the individual to control his product or
whatever his product has brought him through exchange in a free
market– that is, private property. Whoever denies private property
is of necessity an Archist." However, some of these individuals
opposed property titles to unused land.

Identity
politics

Gender

Anarcha-feminism is a kind of radical feminism that espouses the
belief that patriarchy
is a fundamental problem in society. However, it was not explicitly
formulated as anarcha-feminism until early 1970s[25],
during the second-wave feminist movement.
Anarcha-feminism views patriarchy as the first manifestation of
hierarchy in human history; thus, the first form of oppression
occurred in the dominance of male over female. Anarcha-feminists
then conclude that if feminists are against patriarchy, they must
also be against all forms of hierarchy, and therefore must reject the
authoritarian nature of the state and capitalism.

Early first-wave feminist Mary Wollstonecraft held
proto-anarchist views, and William Godwin is often considered a
feminist anarchist precursor. While most anarchists of the period
did not take these ideas seriously, others, such as Florence Finch
Kelly and Moses
Harman held gender equality as a topic of significant
importance.[26]
Anarcha-feminism garnered further attention through the work of
early 20th-century authors and theorists including Emma Goldman and Voltairine de Cleyre. In the Spanish Civil
War, an anarcha-feminist group, "Free Women", organized to
defend both anarchist and feminist ideas.

Unlike marxist feminism and socialist
feminism, anarcha-feminism does not necessarily adopt the
historical model of patriarchy put across by Engels in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and
the State. Rather, anarcha-feminists are likely to view
patriarchy as a component and symptom of interconnected systems of
oppression. In such a model, opposition to patriarchy is not the
sole means of opposing authoritarian repression, but instead
becomes a key component of a movement opposing all interconnected
forms of oppression. Anarcho-primitivists see the creation of
gender roles and patriarchy as a creation of the start of civilization, and
therefore consider primitivism to also be an anarchist school
of thought that addresses feminist concerns. Eco-feminism, although not exclusively
anarchist, is often considered a feminist variant of green
anarchist feminist thought.

In anarcha-feminist circles in the United States, the slang term
"manarchist" is sometimes used, pejoratively, to describe male
anarchists who are either inattentive to or dismissive of
(anarcha)feminist concerns.

Race

Black
anarchism opposes the existence of a state, capitalism, and
subjugation and domination of people of color, and favors a
non-hierarchical organization of society. Theorists include Ashanti Alston,
Lorenzo Komboa Ervin, and Sam Mbah. Some of
these theorists have had past experiences with the Black
Panther Party, and came to anarchism after they became critical
of the Black Panther Party's brand of Marxist-Leninism. Anarchist People of Color,
(or APOC), was created as a forum for non-Caucasian anarchists to
express their thoughts about racial issues within the anarchist
movement, particularly within the United States. Anti-Racist
Action is not an anarchist group, but many anarchists are
involved. It focuses on publicly confronting racist agitators, such
as the KKK, neo-Nazi
groups, etc.

Most modern and historical anarchists describe themselves as
anti-racists. Many early Anarchists, notably Lucy Parsons - a
person of color and formerly an enslavedAmerican - viewed Racism as one of many
negative side-effects of Capitalism and expected that it would
vanish in a post-capitalist world. Among modern Anarchists,
however, anti-racism plays a more prominent role and racism is
typically viewed as one of several forms of social hierarchy and
stratification which must be destroyed. No anarchist organizations
has ever included racism as part of its platform, and many,
particularly modern formations, include explicit anti-racism. For
instance American Anarchists were alone in opposing racism against
Chinese and Mexican workers in the
early 1900s and late 1800s.

Since the late 1970s anarchists have been involved in fighting
the rise of neo-fascist groups. In Germany and the
United Kingdom some anarchists worked within militant anti-fascist groups alongside
members of the Marxist left. They advocated directly
combating fascists with physical force rather than relying on the
state. Since the late 1990s, a similar tendency has developed
within US anarchism. See also: Anti-Racist Action (US), Anti-Fascist Action (UK/Europe), AntifaAnti-Racist Action is one of the
largest grassroots anti-fascist and anti-racist organizations in
North America today and counts many anarchists among its members.
Their tactics, centered around directly confronting neo-fascist and white-supremacist groups, are considered
controversial both within the anarchist movement (where they are
sometimes portrayed as well-intentioned but ineffective) and in
mainstream society (where they are often portrayed as violent and
disruptive).

Many anarchists are also involved in the New Abolitionist
movement, which seeks to abolish the concept of race itself on that
basis that it has no biological basis and is a social construction
designed to divide the working class and preserve capitalism.

Black
anarchism opposes the existence of a state, capitalism, and
subjugation and domination of people of African descent, and
favours a non-hierarchical organization of society. Theorists
include Ashanti
Alston, Lorenzo Komboa
Ervin, Sam Mbah, Aragorn! and Martin Sostre. Anarchist People of Color
emerged in the United States as a tendency which theorized
anarchism in the broader context of race. Founded by writer and
organizer Ernesto Aguilar, an APOC email list
became the basis for collectives composed of people of colour to
form in several American cities. APOC held a conference in Detroit,
Michigan in 2003. In 2005, the first APOC journal, Wildfire, was
launched, but folded a few months later. In 2007, Roger White and
the Oakland, California APOC group founded Jailbreak
Press blog. [2]

A minority of historically prominent anarchists have been
accused of racism: e.g. Proudhon[27]
and Bakunin.[28]

A major area of conflict amongst anarchists is how honest to be
about the racism which has existed within the anarchist movement
since the days of Proudhon and Bakunin who were both noted
Eurocentrists and
anti-semites. Some anarchists dismiss this
as being completely unimportant, suggesting for instance that
racism was commonly accepted at the time. Other anarchists simply
prefer to ignore the issue on the grounds that anarchism, unlike
ideologies such as Marxism, is not defined by individual theorists,
but by the concepts they developed, thus rendering perceived
personal failings of individual theorists irrelevant to anarchism
generally.

Religion

From Proudhon and Bakunin to the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists,
most anarchists have questioned or opposed organized religion, believing that most
organized religions are hierarchical or authoritarian and, more often than
not, aligned with contemporary power structures like state and capital. Nonetheless, others
reconcile anarchism with religion.

Christian anarchists believe that
there is no higher authority than God, and oppose earthly authority such as government and
established churches. They believe that Jesus' teachings and the
practice of the early church were clearly anarchistic. Some
of them feel that the teachings of the Nazarenes and other early groups of followers
were corrupted by contemporary religious views - most notably when
Constantine I
declared "Christianity" to be the official religion of Rome.
Christian anarchists, who follow Jesus' directive to "turn the
other cheek", are usually strict pacifists, although some believe in a limited
justification of defense, especially defense of others. The most
famous advocate of Christian anarchism was Leo Tolstoy, author of The
Kingdom of God is Within You, who called for a society
based on compassion, nonviolent principles and freedom. Christian
anarchists tend to form experimental communities (such as the Catholic
Worker). They also occasionally resist taxation.

Neopaganism, with
its focus on the environment and equality, along with its often
decentralized nature, has led to a number of neopagan anarchists.
One of the most prominent is Starhawk, who writes extensively about both spirituality and activism.

Discussing the anarchist movement in Britain in 2002, Adam K.
has argued that it "has an especially ignorant and hegemonistic
perception of the Muslim community", which he attributed to "the
anglo-centric nature of the movement". Quoting the statement that
"Islam is an enemy of all
freedom loving people" from an anarchist magazine, he argues that
this is "no different to the bigoted rhetoric of George Bush or
even BNP leader Nick Griffin."[30]

Capitalism

Throughout most of its history, anarchism has been defined by
its proponents in opposition to capitalism - which they believe can be
maintained only by state violence.[31] Most
non-capitalist anarchists follow Proudhon in opposing
ownership of workplaces by capitalists and aim to replace wage labour with
workers' associations. These anarchists agree with Kropotkin's
comment that "the origin of the anarchist inception of society…
[lies in] the criticism… of the hierarchical organisations and the
authoritarian conceptions of society" rather than in simple
opposition to the state or government.[32] They
argue that the wage system is hierarchical and authoritarian in
nature and, consequently, capitalism cannot be anarchist.[33]

Individualist
anarchists, have historically advocated markets essential to a
free society. However, most early individualist anarchists
considered themselves "fervent anti-capitalists… [who see] no
contradiction between their individualist stance and their
rejection of capitalism."[34] Many
defined themselves as socialists. These early
individualist-anarchists defined "capitalism" in various ways, but
often it was discussed in terms of usury:

"There are three forms of usury, interest on money, rent on land
and houses, and profit in exchange. Whoever is in receipt of any of
these is a usurer." [cited in Men against the State by James J.
Martin, p. 208]

Excluding these, however, they tended to support free trade,
free competition, and varying levels of private property such as mutualism and homesteading.[35][36][37] It is
this distinction which has led to the rift between anarchism and
anarcho-capitalism. The self-proclaimed descendents of such
theorists[38],
variously called anarcho-capitalists, free-market anarchists, or
simply individualist anarchists, support laissez-faire free market
capitalism. Historically, anarchists considered themselves
socialists and opposed to capitalism. Thus, anarcho-capitalism is
considered by many anarchists today as not being true
anarchism.[39]

Anarchist organisations, for example the CNT (Spain) and the
Anarchist Federation (Britain and Ireland),
generally take an explicitly anti-capitalist stance. In the 20th
century, several economists began to formulate a form of radical
American libertarianism known as anarcho-capitalism. This has met
resistance from those who hold that capitalism is inherently
oppressive or statist; many anarchists and scholars don't consider
anarcho-capitalism to properly cohere with the spirit, principles,
or history of anarchism.[40]
However, other anarchists and scholars regard anarchism as
referring only to opposition to the non-privatisation of all
aspects of the state, and thus do consider anarcho-capitalism to be
a form of anarchism.[41]

Nationalism

Anarchism has a long history of opposing imperialism, both in the core nations (the
colonizers) and the periphery nations (the colonized). In general,
anarchists have preferred to focus on building revolutions at home
and doing solidarity work for comrades in other countries, e.g. Guy Aldred was jailed for
printing Shyamji Krishnavarma's'The
Indian Sociologist.

Another example of this was Rudolf Rocker, a prominent German
anarchist and anti-fascist, who was particularly active
amongst Jewish workers. In his Nationalism and Culture he
argued for a "federation of European peoples" which would include
Jews. Rejecting biological theories of race, and rejecting the
concept of nation, he argued that since it was European States that
had conquered and colonized the rest of the world, successful
libertarian organization amongst Europeans was "the first condition
for the creation of a world federation, which will also secure the
so-called colonial
peoples the same rights for the pursuit of happiness" (p554). Many
modern anarchists and other anti-imperialists share this
approach.[47]

Chinese anarchists were very active in the
early Chinese nationalist movement and in the resistance to British and later
Japanese
colonization of China.
Anarchists were also deeply involved in anti-imperialist
nationalist movements in Vietnam, Korea, Cuba,
Ukraine, Ireland, Mexico, and all over Africa.

Most anarchists see class society as
being the root cause of pollution. They argue that a small class of owners or
controllers have the wealth to avoid the worst repercussions of
pollution while a very much larger class of workers without such
wealth have no say in the running of the workplace. Thus under
capitalism and other class societies those who control workplaces
are also those with the least interest in minimising pollution -
indeed as most anti-pollution measures add to costs that class will
have an interest in minimising such measures. Under capitalism
pollution is often a product of externalising costs - that is a
transfer of a pollutant from the property of the owner to a public
river transfers the cost from the capitalist to society at large. The anarchist communist
solution is to ensure that all those working and living within the
ecosystem of a plant
have control over all its outputs, including pollutants.

Primitivism is a predominantly
Western philosophy that advocates a return to a pre-industrial and
usually pre-agricultural society. It develops a critique of
industrial civilization. In this critique technology and development have
alienated people from the natural
world. This philosophy develops themes present in the political
action of the Luddites and the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Primitivism developed in the context of the Reclaim the
Streets, Earth First! and the Earth Liberation Front
movements. John
Zerzan wrote that civilization– not just the state– would
need to fall for anarchy to be achieved. Anarcho-primitivists point
to the anti-authoritarian nature of many 'primitive' or
hunter-gatherer societies throughout the world's history as
examples of anarchist societies.

Relations with the Left

On May 1937 the President of Republican Spain,
Manuel Azaña,
then living in the parliament house in Exposition Park, talked by
telephone to the President of Catalonia, Luis Companys, who
was in his office in the Palace of the Generalitat. The
conversation had been going on for some time, when it was sharply
interrupted by an anarchist in the Telefónica who said: "This
conversation will have to stop. We have more interesting things to
do than listen to your stupid conversations." The line was
then broken.

A movement called post-left anarchy seeks to distance
itself from the traditional "left" - Communists, socialists, social democrats,
etc. - and to escape the confines of ideology in general. Post-leftists argue that
anarchism has been weakened by its long attachment to contrary
"leftist" movements and single issue causes (anti-war, anti-nuclear, etc.).
It calls for a synthesis of anarchist thought and a specifically
anti-authoritarian revolutionary movement outside of the leftist
milieu. Important groups and individuals associated with post-left
anarchy include: CrimethInc., the magazine Anarchy: A
Journal of Desire Armed and its editor Jason McQuinn, Bob Black, Hakim Bey and others.

Some activists, calling themselves "insurrectionary anarchists", are critical
of formal anarchist labor unions and federations, and advocate
informal organization, carrying out acts of resistance in various
struggles. Proponents include Wolfi Landstreicher and Alfredo M.
Bonanno, author of works including "Armed Joy" and "The
Anarchist Tension". This tendency is represented in the US in
magazines such as Willful Disobedience and Killing King
Abacus.

Communism

While communism is proposed as a form of social and economic
organisation by many anarchists, other anarchists consider it a
danger to the liberty and free development of the individual.[50] Most
schools of anarchism have
recognized a distinction between libertarian and authoritarian
forms of communism.[51]Proudhon said of communism,
"whether of the utopian or the Marxist variety, that it destroyed
freedom by taking away from the individual control over his means
of production"[52] and
"Communism is exploitation of the strong by the weak."[53]Mikhail Bakunin
stated "I hate Communism because it is the negation of liberty and
because for me humanity is unthinkable without liberty. I am not a
Communist, because Communism concentrates and swallows up in itself
for the benefit of the State all the forces of society, because it
inevitably leads to the concentration of property in the hands of
the State."[54]
Bakunin was speaking of 'state communism' (authoritarian Marxism)
as verified by the last line which mentions state property;
anarcho-communists explicitly reject state property and authority,
especially centralized authority.

Although Peter Kropotkin, one of the leading
proponents of anarchist communism, while also
opposing 'state communism', argued for an economic model of free
distribution between all individuals, many individualist anarchists
oppose communism in all its forms, on the grounds that voluntary
communism is not practicable. Individualist such as Benjamin
Tucker, Victor Yarros, and Henry Appleton have denied that anarcho-communism is a genuine form of
anarchism.[55] They
rejected its strategies and argued that it is inherently
authoritarian.[56]
In the opinion of individualist Henry Appleton, "Communism, being
opposed to natural law, must necessarily call upon unnatural
methods if it would put itself into practice" and employ "pillage,
brute force, and violence."[57]

Anarcho-communists reject the criticism, pointing to the
principle of voluntary association that
underpins their theory and differentiates it from state
communism.[58] Some
individualist anarchists are also willing to recognize anarchist
communism as a legitimate form. Kevin Carson writes that "free
market, libertarian communist, syndicalism, and other kinds of
collectivist anarchists must learn to coexist in peace and mutual
respect today, in our fight against the corporate state, and
tomorrow, in the panarchy
that is likely to succeed it."[59]

^
Anarchists see war as an activity in which the state seeks to gain
and consolidate power, both domestically and in foreign lands, and
subscribe to Randolph Bourne's view that "war is the
health of the state."War is the Health of the
State

^
Bakunin, quoted by Shlomo Avineri, in Radical Theology,
the New Left, and Israel, p. 245-246 [an article in Auschwitz.
Beginning of a New Era? Reflections on the Holocaust, edited by Eva
Fleishner], KTAV Publishing House, Inc.; The Cathedral Church of
St. John Divine; Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, 1977, p.
241-254

^Ghadar Movement: Ideology, Organisation and Strategy,
Harish K. Puri, Guru Nanak Dev University Press, Amritsar: "The
only account of Hardayal's short stay in that island Martinique, comes from Bhai Parmanand, a
self exiled Arya
Samajist missionary from Lahore, who stayed a month with him there. Har
Dayal used that time, says Parmanand, to discuss plans to found a
new religion: his model was the Buddha. He ate mostly boiled grain,
slept on the bare floor and spent his time in meditation in a
secluded place. Guy
Aldred, a famous English radical and friend, tells us of
Hardayal's proclaimed belief at that time in the coming republic
"which was to be a Church, a religious confraternity . . . its
motto was to be: atheism, cosmopolitanism and moral law' Parmamand
says that Har Dayal acceded to his persuasion to go to the USA and
decided to make New York a centre for the propagation of the
ancient culture of the Aryan." (page 55) and "the ideal
social order would be the one which approximated to the legendary
Vedic period of Indian history because, as Har Dayal affirmed,
practical equality existed only in that society, where there were
no governors and no governed, no priests and no laymen, no rich and
no poor." (page 112), referencing The Social Conquest of
the Hindu Race and Meaning of Equality.

^
Brown, Susan Love, The Free Market as Salvation from Government:
The Anarcho-Capitalist View, Meanings of the Market: The Free
Market in Western Culture, edited by James G. Carrier, Berg/Oxford,
1997, p. 107 and p. 104)

^Madison, Charles A. (1945). "Anarchism in
the United States". Journal of the History of Ideas6 (1): 46–66. doi:10.2307/2707055.

^
Non-capitalist market anarchists support private
possession along Warren's, Proudhon's, or similar lines.
In contrast, anarcho-capitalists support private property along
Lockean or similar lines.

^
Brown, Susan Love, The Free Market as Salvation from Government:
The Anarcho-Capitalist View, Meanings of the Market: The Free
Market in Western Culture, edited by James G. Carrier, Berg/Oxford,
1997, p. 107 and p. 103)

^
As Peter Marshall notes in his
history of anarchism "few anarchists would accept the
'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not
share a concern for economic equality and social justice." -
Demanding the Impossible, p. 565

^
For instance,Benjamin Tucker says, "Yes, genuine
Anarchism is consistent Manchesterism, and
Communistic or pseudo-Anarchism is inconsistent Manchesterism."
(Tucker, Benjamin. Labor and Its Pay, from
Individual Liberty: Selections from the Writings of Benjamin T.
Tucker); Victor
Yarros says, "There is no logical justification, no rational
explanation, and no scientific reasoning has been, is, will be, or
can be advanced in defence of that unimaginable impossibility,
Communistic Anarchism." (Yarros, Victor S. A Princely Paradox,
Liberty, Vol 4. No. 19, Saturday, April 9, 1887, Whole Number 97)
Henry Appleton
says, "All Communism, under whatever guise, is the natural enemy of
Anarchism, and a Communist sailing under the flag of Anarchism is
as false a figure as could be invented." (Appleton, Henry. Anarchism, True and False, Liberty 2.24, no. 50,
6 September 1884, p. 4.); Clarence Lee Swartz says, ""One of
the tests of any reform movement with regard to personal liberty is
this: Will the movement prohibit or abolish private property? If it
does, it is an enemy of liberty. For one of the most important
criteria of freedom is the right to private property in the
products of ones labor. State Socialists, Communists, Syndicalists
and Communist-Anarchists deny private property." (Swartz, Clarence
Lee. What is Mutualism?)